Page Lebanon

This week, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) published an explosive report on the UN investigation of the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafic Hariri. Following up on the report, the CBC also broadcast Getting Away With Murder, a rather provocative video documentary on the issue.

The CBC’s basic points are clear. First, the UN investigation did not uncover much until late 2007. Second, investigators basically shelved a report by Captain Wissam Eid, who used cellular phone records to uncover a layered network that apparently observed, followed, and ultimately killed Hariri. Third, Eid and the UN investigators, who belatedly explored the cellular connections, concluded that Hizbullah members were at the heart of this network. Fourth, Internal Security Forces intelligence chief Wissam al-Hassan – who “should have been in” Hariri’s convoy – may have been involved in the plot, perhaps providing Hizbullah operatives with information on Hariri’s comings and goings. Fifth, the killers will likely get away with the crime, particularly given the current international and regional political climate.

Some critics of the report have (perhaps rightfully) bashed its sensationalist approach, and have shot down its portrayal of Captain Eid as a larger-than-life Lebanese hero. Others have dismissed the report’s substance, pointing out that its revelations are nothing more than recycled bits of other reports. Commenting on Qifa Nabki, a Lebanese affairs blog, some people I know rather well ”smell a rat“  and link each report to the political twists and turns of the region. A host of others have dug up old accusations and counteraccusations by Syrian stooges, Lebanese intelligence officials, Hariri’s inner circle, and foreign investigators.

Yet, sensationalism and speculation – the former by CBC, the latter by the entire commentariat – should not obscure the merits and faults of the case. These will only emerge once STL prosecutors issue their indictments, once the defense presents its case with the “equality of arms,” and once the trial chamber makes its determinations based on Lebanese law and evidentiary standards.

Please see
http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/watch/
 for the entire show. Please see this link for Getting Away With Murder.

Read Full Post »

Congratulations to all the Lebanese celebrating their country’s 67th independence day. After all, Lebanon’s existence should not be taken for granted. Lebanon’s various communities have contested the state’s existence from the outset. Some viewed the country as their rightful inheritance; others saw it as a colonial bridgehead dominated by a foreign-backed minority; and some fell in between these extremes while still supporting or opposing Lebanon’s place on the map. 

But, after a collective crisis of sorts, the Lebanese finally embraced Lebanon as a country. Now, the Lebanese are engaged in the midst of a long struggle over their identity and regional role. Since 2005, latent divisions have come to the forefront. Assassinations, political paralysis, and war have taken more lives, driven hundreds of thousands of more Lebanese to the refuge of distant shores, and cost the country billions of dollars.

Undue foreign influence, local political exploitation, ignorance, fear, hatred, and the long reach of memory stand between the Lebanese and their lost promise. Many people - and not just Lebanese – have lost their lives, livelihoods, and loved ones in the struggle over Lebanon’s fate. Many more will suffer the same, whether or not the Lebanese achieve a meaningful independence. Either way, they’ll be celebrating in Lebanon again next year.

Read Full Post »

With the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) seemingly ready to press forward, tensions remain high in Beirut. One camp supports the Tribunal wholeheartedly, believing that it offers a chance for justice that has eluded the Lebanese throughout their republic’s sixty-year history. Another camp suspects the Tribunal is nothing more than a political tool aimed at opponents of the West and Israel.

Amid the debate, commentators and citizens alike have conflated politics and law. True, an international investigation of the murder of a former prime minister is bound to involve an interplay of the two. Likewise, pro-sovereignty Lebanese may be leaning on the Tribunal in the absence of adequate political alternatives (after all, Syria has done a nice job of marginalizing Lebanese opposition to its influence).

However, politics and law operate on different time-planes. It has taken five years for prosecutors to near indicting someone, and will likely take at least five more before a meaningful legal resolution is even feasible. For an interesting take on the difficulties inherent in an institutional process that mixes international law and politics, as well as local designs, check out Michael Young’s most recent piece on the STL.

(For whatever reason, I’ve had trouble embedding the link, so please see below…)

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=217098
.

Read Full Post »

After five years of fitful progress, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) is on the verge of indicting those persons responsible for the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafic Hariri. Although early investigations pointed the finger at Damascus, the STL seems ready to indict members of Hizbullah for the killing. Speculation in Beirut and across the region has reached a feverish pitch, with reports and commentaries suggesting that the indictment’s consequences may include political crisis, civil unrest, and war.

Amid the ruckus, the Tribunal’s credibility has apparently become an issue. Sensible commentators, like Foreign Policy’s Marc Lynch, have questioned the prudence of throwing American support behind an international judicial body that “many people in the region” believe is a political tool.

Essentially, Lynch argues that the STL’s credibility problems result from its own investigative turns, particularly its shift in focus from Syria to Hizbullah. In this view, the STL will pursue the “Party of God” because the regional political climate favors détente with Syria, and not because investigators have uncovered new evidence of some sort. Thus, Lynch continues, the U.S. should refrain from supporting the Tribunal for fear of enflaming regional sentiments or ensnaring itself in another Lebanese crisis. Peace over justice, as justice involves shades of grey, seems to be the gist of Lynch’s argument.

But let’s not put the cart before the horse. It is certainly true that the issues at hand are controversial, but this is precisely why international tribunals exist in the first place. All international tribunals raise sensitive political issues and suffer from the “credibility question.” Paradoxically, by their very existence, these tribunals often enflame the tensions that they seek to put to rest. To escape accountability, war criminals, genocidal maniacs, and political murderers have in the past threatened to wreak havoc against local populations at the heart of an investigation.

Nevertheless, special courts and tribunals place the pursuit of justice under an international umbrella and beyond the reach of local machinations. Beginning with the Nuremburg Trials, which dealt with Nazi war criminals, the international community has used special courts to deal with conflict and crime in Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Cambodia, Sierra Leone, and East Timor. The logic is quite simple: no justice, no peace.  By holding individuals and groups accountable for their crimes, the international community has sought to overcome the climate of impunity that so often threatens peace and stability. Lebanon is no different.

It’s not as if Lebanese involvement in Hariri’s killing would come as a surprise. The edifice of Syria’s occupation of Lebanon rested upon a joint Syrian-Lebanese security apparatus that harassed, kidnapped, tortured, and killed Lebanese dissidents for fifteen years. These are not speculative barbs, but ugly realities that many Lebanese – including friend and family members – have experienced first-hand. Moreover, since the Cedar Revolution of 2005, unseen hands have murdered journalists, politicians, and security officials connected to Lebanon’s independence movement and to the Tribunal’s investigation. Of course, Hizbullah’s involvement in these actions remains unknown – but the organization is part and parcel of the security apparatus that once lorded over the Lebanese.

To accompany a campaign of orchestrated chaos, Syria and Hizbullah have smeared the STL in the press, at public rallies, and behind closed doors. By cultivating fear of untold consequences and attacking the investigation’s credibility, Syria and Hizbullah aim to exhaust local and international support for the Tribunal and dodge the wheels of justice.

In any case, abandoning the STL will not gain the U.S. friends in Tehran, Damascus, or Hizbullah. These actors simply oppose American influence in the region. Revoking support for the Tribunal won’t win hearts and minds on the Arab Street, either. Washington’s failure to step up would probably undercut moderates in Beirut, derail justice in the region, and lose the U.S. quite a few friends that it does have.

To be sure, the U.S. must lead a multilateral effort to prevent the politicization of the STL’s proceedings, doing its best to ensure the trial is fair. But caution should not lead to silence or abandonment.

Far from latching on to a “Bush-era relic,” the Obama Administration has taken an important step towards achieving positive continuity in U.S. policy towards Lebanon. In other words, the U.S. can increase its staying power in the region by supporting allies, leading an international effort supported by many Western and Arab states, and committing itself to a pursuit of justice that “many people in the region” actually support. 

After all, an indictment is not a judgment. Once prosecutors present their evidence, which remains unknown despite rampant speculation, the joint international-Lebanese judicial body can explore the merits of the case. In the meantime, Syria, Hizbullah, or anyone else may find it difficult to preserve their own credibility by violently opposing the STL.

For too long, the Lebanese and other peoples in the region have been content with trading justice for the illusion of peace. In the process, they have secured neither. American support for the STL will help set an example: in setting aside vengeance for prosecution by law, the people of the Middle East can move towards a more stable order.

Read Full Post »